There is absolutely nothing "experimental" about WinLink, which uses a commercial modem to provide HF eMail service that has been available on commercial frequencies for a very long time.

Experimenting is when you try something new, with hopes that it will be beneficial. - Not when you insist upon using something old and inappropriate, ignoring the fact that it is detrimental and flouts the law.

We are specifically prohibited by the federal government in the PART97 regulations from providing, on a regular basis, communications which are available outside of amateur radio. WinLink is identical in almost every respect to SailMail, one of many commercial email over HF services, one which uses the exactly the same equipment and software as WinLink. - The differences between the two being that SailMail costs 20 bucks a month and operates PACTOR III on the channelized commercial spectrum it was designed and intended for, instead of polluting the ham bands and interfering with ham radio operators communications as WinLink does - for free.

The interference issues related to WinLink on HF are partly due to the commercial PACTOR III modem having no provision for detecting any kind of signal except other PACTOR signals, partly due to the WinLink administrator specifying that all automated WinLink servers on HF turn off the little bit of signal detection the modem does have, and partly due to the PACTOR III signal automatically causing itself to spread out wider in reaction to improved band conditions - the exact opposite of good operating practice within amateur radio's shared spectrum. Ham radio QSO's which are fortunate enough not to be overwhelmed by the initial PACTOR III transmissions are then enveloped when the signal widens, without the WinLink server operator's knowledge or intervention.

Because of these factors, PACTOR III interferes with legitimate, legal ham radio communications without operator intervention, simply by being utilized with amateur radios shared spectrum instead of the channelized commercial spectrum that it was designed for.

The WinLink administrator and the operators of the WinLink servers are aware of these issues but operate this inappropriate equipment on ham radio HF frequencies anyway, making the interference they cause every day "willful interference", which is specifically prohibited in the FCC's PART97 regulations that define and protect amateur radio.

These are not just Lids, but Lids who set up an automated system that interferes with legal amateur radio transmissions on HF all day, every day. It is literally impossible to operate the PACTOR III modem legally on the HF amateur radio bands, due to its design and operating characteristics.

People holding foreign licenses are not obligated to obey our rules and regs Charles. In fact they do not have to even give a flying expeletive deleted weither you like it or not--or myself for that matter either. They are governed by THEIR licensing countries (when there) and the ports of call whatever licensing rules and regs exist there.

So they can tell you to go get screwd and there is absoltuely NOTHING you can do to stop them. Our FCC can request but host governments are NOT obligated to listen. There is no law that says they have to kiss your happy azz.

May I beg to differ ? There is an organisation called the International Radio Amateur Union which is believed to make decisions for the use of the amateur radio frequencies with different bodies throughout the world.

Where is the Pactor III transmitting equipment located ? I always had the impression that it was somewhere in the United States of America. I also understand that the use of this equipment has been agreed by the ARRL, but I never could understand how they could agree to the use of equipment which is known to cause interference to radio amateurs and in the US, frequently does.

Where is the station located which is licenced to use this equipment ?

The international radio meetings that take place every so often to set band plans etc cannot force its decisions on constitutant members as a matter of law.

Case in point...The CW Requirement...

CW was reommended to be deleted or phased out by the meeting. BUT HOWEVER the ultimate decision to do so was left to the individual countries radio governing bodies. Those NOT wishing to delete code requirements did not have to do so. AND perhaps there are still a few countries that require the code in some form as a requirement.

Another example: There are more than one country that allows phone operations on the band segment the US has allocated to CW and digital. You hear them often in contests using phone/split operations in the US CW Band. There is nothing the US CW/digi people can do to stop them from doing so.

Each country is ultimately free to govern itself when it comes to the details of operaion. Hence a person licensed in say New Zeland does not have to even remotely care if is transmissions interfere with transmissions in say the UK as long as he does not violate the rules and regs of the territory where he is located and legally authorized to transmit.

I do not do use nor have I ever used either WinLink or Echo Link. So I guess you dont know what the hell you are talking about.

BUT I DO support the use of WinLink as long as it is legal in the country of transmit. Over there its THEIR RULES. Over here its OUR RULES.PERIOD...

BUT I will be fair, even though I think you definately do not deserve the courtesy, I will be fair ....

IF you can site any International Communications Treaty still in effect signed by the FCC Reps or governmental reps of the US Government that clearly states world for word without any interpretation on your part (Preambles NOT acceptable) that someone in say hmmm New Zeland has to give a damn if his signal is annoying someone in another country, say the US. Site the Treaty, Section, Page etc so I can look it up.

And remember you are NOT allowed to interpret anything at all. Your reference must be world for word, punctuation for punctuation.

You are cordially invited to also inform of any specific active International Treaty as mentioned above should you be able to find one. Same terms of course, no interpretation allowed, and no preamble or statement of principles.

I will be more than glad to look up the treaty on the web and read your site of treaty content.

Assuming that they're using our bands to move what you assume is filth based on the fact you can't intercept and review it is......well......just not cool man.

I would assume all the people using this "winlink" service, sorry I don't know much about it, are licensed operators correct? I don't see a problem with them using the spectrum. Back to the "filth" thing though........

I send email to my wife all the time from here in Iraq. I wouldn't want it read either by the people that run the web servers but I have to deal with the fact that it can be read by them if they really want to read it. If some hams have figured out a way send junk to each other and keep it private.....well....more power to them. If you suspect they're all sending porn well the crap can be intercepted at some server somewhere. Report your suspicions and leave it at that. After all, it does use the internet.......SOMEONE has to have the ability to intercept it and review it on their server.

Af far as being a bandwidth hog, I'll honestly say I've never encountered a problem with it. Really, not one problem. If the FCC thinks it's a non issue then I'm inclined to think it's a non issue too. I do have to adimire you for your stamina though and just think of what you could do if you put that amount of energy and time into a realistic project that could actually bear fruit...............

I'm glad you stepped up to admit your basic lack of a clue about what's being discussed. It looks like you are not too familiar with PART97 either, or amateur radio in a general sense.

Kind of makes one wonder why you are hanging out on the digital forum, at a ham radio website.

There is a report that was put out in 2002 concerning terrorist communications via HF eMail. WinLink was specifically mentioned in the report. A few years later, there was an amateur who reported that kiddie porn was being transported over WinLink's 'private' system. Then a Dutch marina operator reported terrorist communications found in a WinLink-equipped boat there in the Netherlands.

Privacy has no place on the ham bands, period. Your apparent confusion between amateur radio and commercial carriers puts the reason for this into high relief.

We are specifically prohibited from transporting inappropriate material over the ham bands, and are expected to monitor each others transmissions ( self-police ) to ensure compliance with this.

Kind of hard to monitor WinLink's 'private' system. - That is one of many reasons it should be immediately shut down, and moved off to the commercial frequencies it was designed for.

When it is discovered that terrorists have utilized WinLink in order to arrange an attack upon the area where your family for example lives in the United States, in what way do you think this will reflect well upon amateur radio?

How do we know that WinLink is transporting terrorist commo and kiddie porn? - The real question for ham radio operators is, how do we know it is not?

Heck Charles, we can all intercept the filth that goes on on 75M in the open every night and nobody does anything about that. It appears to me that it doesn't make much difference whether hams can "monitor" the traffic or not.

Copyright 2000-2018 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement